Florida Frye Standard Reaffirmed





Florida State Courts Reaffirms Frye Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony

In a decision by the Florida Supreme Court in reversing the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ decision in DeLisle v. Crane Co., the Frye standard for admissibility of expert testimony has been reaffirmed in Florida state courts.  The Court stated, “Frye relied on the scientific community to determine reliability whereas Daubert relied on the scientific savvy of trial judges to determine the significance of the methodology used…”  DeLisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883, *1.  Historically, the Frye standard was followed in Florida state courts until 2013, when the Daubert standard was implemented and amended into the Florida Rules of Evidence Code.  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).  The Daubert standard provided for judges’ discretion to determine the reliability of expert testimony through detailed analysis of facts, data, principles, and methods primarily used in expert’s opinion.  While Daubert provided for a greater reliability standard, it also created limitations in meeting causation.  Not to mention, additional time and expense imposed on court trials.  With the Frye standard requiring only a “generally accepted” principle of scientific community to admit expert testimony, it promotes more use in court proceedings.  Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). 
The Frye standard is back in Florida.  When Richard DeLisle developed mesothelioma, a personal injury action ensued against manufactures, cigarettes and suppliers of asbestos-containing devices.  Crane Co. v. DeLisle, 206 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).  At trial, the Circuit Court of Broward County granted judgment on jury verdict in favor of DeLisle after three opinions by expert witnesses were admitted.  On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeals found the trial court improperly applied the Daubert standard.  DeLisle appealed to the Florida Supreme Court on the matter of Daubert (Florida Statute 90.702) claiming it unconstitutional.  The Florida Supreme Court found Florida Statute 90.702 was more procedural when amended in 2013.  The Court further stated, as the statute stood, it created a conflict on the courts ability to rule, making the amended statute unconstitutional.

As such, the DeLisle decision has allowed Florida state courts to favor the Frye standard once again, as to evidence admissibility of expert testimony.  However, the Daubert standard will continue to be applied in federal courts.


Visit us:

Follow us:



The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience. Additionally, the information above is not intended to be legal advice. Please consult with an experienced lawyer if you have a specific issue or dispute.
Office locations: 2400 E. Commercial Boulevard, Suite 400, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
2901 Q. Street, NW Suite 2, Washington, D.C. 20007



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A SUBCONTRACTOR’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CAN BE A GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S LIABILITY

What is Next If your Employee Tests Positive for COVID-19?

COVID-19 Small Business Administration Programs